Evaluating the evaluation of cancer driver genes

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 113, Issue 50, 2016, Pages 14330-14335

  Tokheim, Collin J ^a,b   Papadopoulos, Nickolas ^c,d   Kinzler, Kenneth W ^c,d   Vogelstein, Bert ^c,d   Karchin, Rachel ^a,b,c  

^a Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^b Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^d HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer genomics; Cancer mutations; Computational method evaluation; DNA sequencing; Driver genes

Indexed keywords

BASE PAIRING; BREAST ADENOCARCINOMA; CARCINOGENESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION STUDY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HEAD AND NECK SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; INDEL MUTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA; MACHINE LEARNING; MUTATION RATE; NUCLEIC ACID BASE SUBSTITUTION; PANCREAS ADENOCARCINOMA; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOMATIC MUTATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TUMOR GENE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETICS; HUMAN; MUTATION; NEOPLASM; ONCOGENE; PROCEDURES; SOFTWARE;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, GENETIC; HUMANS; MACHINE LEARNING; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; MUTATION RATE; NEOPLASMS; ONCOGENES; SOFTWARE;

EID: 85005966836     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616440113     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Watson IR, Takahashi K, Futreal PA, Chin L (2013) Emerging patterns of somatic mutations in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 14(10):703-718.
2. Sjöblom T, et al. (2006) The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 314(5797):268-274.
3. Parmigiani G, et al. (2009) Design and analysis issues in genome-wide somatic mutation studies of cancer. Genomics 93(1):17-21.
4. Lawrence MS, et al. (2013) Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 499(7457):214-218.
5. Dees ND, et al. (2012) MuSiC: Identifying mutational significance in cancer genomes. Genome Res 22(8):1589-1598.
6. Vogelstein B, et al. (2013) Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339(6127):1546-1558.
7. Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N (2012) Functional impact bias reveals cancer drivers. Nucleic Acids Res 40(21):e169.
8. Tamborero D, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N (2013) OncodriveCLUST: Exploiting the positional clustering of somatic mutations to identify cancer genes. Bioinformatics 29(18):2238-2244.
9. Davoli T, et al. (2013) Cumulative haploinsufficiency and triplosensitivity drive aneuploidy patterns and shape the cancer genome. Cell 155(4):948-962.
10. Futreal PA, et al. (2004) A census of human cancer genes. Nat Rev Cancer 4(3): 177-183.
11. Tamborero D, et al. (2013) Comprehensive identification of mutational cancer driver genes across 12 tumor types. Sci Rep 3:2650.
12. Lawrence MS, et al. (2014) Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature 505(7484):495-501.
13. Reimand J, Bader GD (2013) Systematic analysis of somatic mutations in phosphorylation signaling predicts novel cancer drivers. Mol Syst Biol 9:637.
14. Mularoni L, Sabarinathan R, Deu-Pons J, Gonzalez-Perez A, López-Bigas N (2016) OncodriveFML: A general framework to identify coding and non-coding regions with cancer driver mutations. Genome Biol 17(1):128.
15. Kumar RD, Searleman AC, Swamidass SJ, Griffith OL, Bose R (2015) Statistically identifying tumor suppressors and oncogenes from pan-cancer genome-sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31(22):3561-3568.
16. Storey JD, Tibshirani R (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(16):9440-9445.
17. Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B, Parmigiani G (2013) Half or more of the somatic mutations in cancers of self-renewing tissues originate prior to tumor initiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(6):1999-2004.
18. Schuster-Böckler B, Lehner B (2012) Chromatin organization is a major influence on regional mutation rates in human cancer cells. Nature 488(7412):504-507.
19. Supek F, Lehner B (2015) Differential DNA mismatch repair underlies mutation rate variation across the human genome. Nature 521(7550):81-84.
20. Forbes SA, et al. (2011) COSMIC: Mining complete cancer genomes in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 39(Database issue):D945-D950.
21. NCBI Resource Coordinators (2016) Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 44(D1):D7-D19.
22. Rosenbloom KR, et al. (2015) The UCSC Genome Browser database: 2015 update. Nucleic Acids Res 43(Database issue):D670-D681.
23. Douville C, et al. (2013) CRAVAT: Cancer-related analysis of variants toolkit. Bioinformatics 29(5):647-648.
24. Amit Y, Geman D (1997) Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees. Neural Comput 9(7):1545-1588.
25. Breiman L (2001) Random Forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5-32.
26. Hofree M, et al. (2016) Challenges in identifying cancer genes by analysis of exome sequencing data. Nat Commun 7:12096.
27. Cheng F, Zhao J, Zhao Z (2016) Advances in computational approaches for prioritizing driver mutations and significantly mutated genes in cancer genomes. Brief Bioinform 17(4):642-656.
28. Chernick MR, Liu CY (2012) The saw-toothed behavior of power versus sample size and software solutions. Am Stat 56(2):149-155.
29. Li Q, Brown JB, Huang H, Bickel PJ (2011) Measuring reproducibility of highthroughput experiments. Ann Appl Stat 5(3):1752-1779.
30. Wong WC, et al. (2011) CHASM and SNVBox: Toolkit for detecting biologically important single nucleotide mutations in cancer. Bioinformatics 27(15):2147-2148.